2520-607 = 1913

by schnell 43 Replies latest jw friends

  • blondie
    blondie

    Don't forget that a year is really 365 days not the 360 days the WTS uses to calculate how many years. So what did the Jews do with those days,...they had another month added to keep the harvest times balanced.

    The Hebrew lunar year is about eleven days shorter than the solar year and uses the 19-year Metonic cycle to bring it into line with the solar year, with the addition of an intercalary month every two or three years, for a total of seven times per 19 years. Even with this intercalation, the average Hebrew calendar year is longer by about 6 minutes and 40 seconds than the current mean tropical year, so that every 216 years the Hebrew calendar will fall a day behind the current mean tropical year; and about every 231 years it will fall a day behind the mean Gregorian calendar year.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar

  • schnell
    schnell

    Also...

    From Year 607 BCE to 1 CE is 607 years
    From Year 1 CE to 1914 CE is 1913 years

    607-1 = 606

    (Ooops! Forgot the zero year!)

    607 - 1 -1 = 605

    1914 - 1 = 1913

    1913 + 605 = 2518

    CORRECTION:
    607 - 607 = 0

    1914 - 1 = 1913

    1913 + 607 = 2520

    There we go, that's better. Now we still have it leading to... 1913.


  • maksutov
    maksutov

    CORRECTION:
    607 - 607 = 0

    1914 - 1 = 1913

    1913 + 607 = 2520

    There we go, that's better. Now we still have it leading to... 1913.

    No, it does lead to 1914 (albeit, using solar years instead of the lunar years that the so-called prophecy is made up of). 1913 years after 1 CE was 1914, not 1913.

  • schnell
    schnell

    Because 1 CE is included in the 1913 years? Okay, I can accept that.

    ... Except that it is said to have terminated well into 1914, in October.

  • sparky1
    sparky1

    I prefer the 'Great Pyramid' explanation of 1914. It is undeniably and unequivocally correct because it is 'set in stone'! An 'inch for a year' or a 'day for a year'.....it all works out to Jehovah's glory!

  • David_Jay
    David_Jay

    But it is also correct that the 2,520 years is very off. Jewish years are composed of 12 lunar months of 29.5 days. Every few years a leap month of 30 days is added, but until modern times this did not happen on a set schedule.

    If one were to count 2,520 Biblical years from 607 B.C.E. one would need further instructions: do we add leap months, and if so, according to the modern method or the ancient one? And if we use the ancient one, do we match the way the Jews were adding extra months or do we make corrections that we now know they failed to make (which is why we now have a system in place to tell us when we are adding an extra month)?

    I was doing this the other night with some rabbinical assistance but had to stop when Shabbat began. We realized that there can thus be three figures, none of which match 2,520 solar years as the count is made by Jehovah's Witnesses to arrive at 1914 C.E.

    We always ended up with a discrepancy that kept us about 300 years on average short of the 1914 date. Because the Witnesses count the Gentile Times using solar years, they are like the fictional Germans from the movie, "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Having made a "measuring rod" based on a miscalculation of some Jewish writing, the bad guys in that film were "digging in the wrong place" for The Ark. The same is true for the Bible Students who made up that formula of 7 Gentile Times: even if their 607 starting date is right, and their 2,520 is precise, they counted 2,520 Gregorian calendar years to get to 1914 when they were supposed to be using the lunar years of the Jewish calendar.

    1914 is never a possibility using any of the dates on hand for the beginning of the Gentile Times, and there is probably no way to know how to count from then up to now because of the leap year issues.

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    Whatever it is, GB2.0 will present it in the way best for the Borg. Don't look for logic where it never existed

  • David_Jay
    David_Jay

    We did attempt to compensate for the leap year problem and came up with a year as close as 1841 as a result, but then realized that was an artificial stab in the dark. We merely had to guess at the amount of time added because at one point in history the months were added through visible examination, and this was not always correct. It led to problems that had to be corrected later.

    So if one merely counts 2,520 straight lunar years of 29.5 days, you still can't figure it out unless we know for sure if the leap months were added when mathematically necessary (enough .5 days to make an extra month), or were added when they were observed by Jerusalem in the historical past (which has some mistakes in the calculations of the past), or if they should be added when the leap months should have occurred (based on the corrected recount of modern times), or do they get ignored completely? There's no way to know.

  • Crazyguy
    Crazyguy

    Let's not forget when Armageddon didn't happen in 1914 Russell was kind enough to change it to 1915. He even changed the measurements of the pyramid to make it work. What a guy!

  • btlc
    btlc

    schnell: From what I understand, Russell realized this. He had previously used 606 BC, of course, but then he switched it to 607 BC.

    wrong, CT Russell never spoke about 607 BCE, not even Rutherford, their number was 606 BCE. The first mention of 607 BCE was soon after Rutherford's death, in the 1943. book "The Truth Shall Make You Free", page 239.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit